The Oregon Department of Revenue conducted a study of Douglas County to determine real market values of local properties by comparing sales against appraisals. The study contained enough flaws that the county could be found non-compliant with state law if the same errors happen next year. The state issued a letter to County Assessor Roger Hartman saying it approved the 2015 Assessor Certified Ratio Study.
However, the letter was critical about the quality of the report, which it said was “late, lacked transparency, and omitted meaningful analysis.” If those deficiencies aren’t corrected in the 2016 report, the county could lose some state funding. The county uses appraised values to determine how much property tax is owed.
The Douglas County Board of Commissioners held a conference call with Department of Revenue officials to learn more about the critique of the ratio study. Though the commissioners do not have authority over the assessor, who is an independently elected official, commissioners said they wanted to understand the issues and offer what help they could to resolve the situation.
The Department of Revenue told the commissioners that the county’s report included eight countywide studies, but it didn’t offer studies of individual areas within the county. They said one of the eight studies wasn’t standard, and the report lacked page numbers and included a map that didn’t clearly identify specific areas within the county.
“I am very disturbed that they thought it was not transparent, because that’s one of the most important things in my administration,” Hartman told The (Rosenburg) News-Review.
Hartman previously had represented property owners who argued for lower appraisals before the Board of Property Tax Appeals and claimed a 95 percent success rate obtaining lower valuations.
Hartman said it will take at least a year to get values sorted out. Some properties are valued too high, and some too low, he said. The 2015 ratio study balanced out because there were about equal numbers of too-high and too-low values.
“Obviously, they weren’t comfortable with what we submitted, even though we followed all the protocol, but the bottom line is they accepted and approved (the report),” Hartman said.